What do you think?
Rate this book
Space, time, and resurrection
The sequel to Space, Time and Incarnation. Professor Torrance attempts to set out the biblical approach to the Resurrection in terms of the intrinsic significance of the resurrected one, Jesus; and demonstrates that the Resurrection is entirely consistent with who Jesus was and what he did. The Resurrection is thus taken realistically, and treated as of the same nature, in the integration of physical and spiritual existence, as the death of Christ. All this is elucidated in the context of modern scientific thought, in such a way as to show that far from being frightened by modern science into a compromise of the NT message of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in body, it actually allows us to take its full measure.
196 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
19 people are currently reading
103 people want to read
About the author
Thomas F. Torrance
99 books75 followersThomas Forsyth Torrance, MBE FRSE (30 August 1913 – 2 December 2007), commonly referred to as T. F. Torrance, was a Scottish Protestant theologian. Torrance served for 27 years as Professor of Christian Dogmatics at New College, Edinburgh in the University of Edinburgh. He is best known for his pioneering work in the study of science and theology, but he is equally respected for his work in systematic theology. While he wrote many books and articles advancing his own study of theology, he also edited the translation of several hundred theological writings into English from other languages, including the English translation of the thirteen-volume, six-million-word Church Dogmatics of Swiss theologian Karl Barth, as well as John Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. He was also a member of the famed Torrance family of theologians.
Torrance has been acknowledged as one of the most significant English-speaking theologians of the twentieth century, and in 1978, he received the prestigious Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in Religion.[1] Torrance remained a dedicated churchman throughout his life, serving as an ordained minister in the Church of Scotland. He was instrumental in the development of the historic agreement between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the doctrine of the Trinity when a joint statement of agreement on that doctrine was issued between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Church on 13 March 1991.[2] He retired from the University of Edinburgh in 1979, but continued to lecture and to publish extensively. Several influential books on the Trinity were published after his retirement: The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (1988); Trinitarian Perspectives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement (1994); and The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (1996).
Torrance has been acknowledged as one of the most significant English-speaking theologians of the twentieth century, and in 1978, he received the prestigious Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in Religion.[1] Torrance remained a dedicated churchman throughout his life, serving as an ordained minister in the Church of Scotland. He was instrumental in the development of the historic agreement between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the doctrine of the Trinity when a joint statement of agreement on that doctrine was issued between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Church on 13 March 1991.[2] He retired from the University of Edinburgh in 1979, but continued to lecture and to publish extensively. Several influential books on the Trinity were published after his retirement: The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (1988); Trinitarian Perspectives: Toward Doctrinal Agreement (1994); and The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (1996).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 16, 2022
When we study the New Testament, “we try to understand that reality in its own light” and letting our mind “fall under the power of its intrinsic significance” (Torrance 5). This means the texts point beyond themselves (cf. Athanasius, CA 2.3).
Crucial topic: is the resurrection a biological fact or a special fact? This is the question that gutted liberal Protestantism. However, the “conservative” answers sometimes missed a key truth. The answer is both, but both as in a “staggered hierarchy.” Yes, Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, yet so was Lazarus, which means the resurrection of Christ cannot simply be reduced to a biological “yes.” As Torrance points out in a footnote, quoting John Wilkinson, biological answers cannot yield theological answers, yet neither can they be placed against them (Torrance 60 n16). This is analogous to the relationship between classical mechanics and post-Einsteinianism. You can’t get to the latter by means of the former, yet you need both.
We cannot interpret the resurrecting processes within the old frame of death and entropy. It requires an irruption into a newer order. Liberal Protestants, being Deists and Gnostics, simply “spiritualized” this away. In accordance with Torrance’s kataphysical theology, the resurrection “impresses” itself on our minds and forces our minds to interpret it accordingly to its own reality.
One of the ways the resurrection safeguards man against the false teachings of Eastern religion, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism is that it anchors the reality of man. Resurrection, among other things, heals creation. It keeps man from sliding into an ephemeral fog.
Moreover, the resurrection places the theologian into the concrete realities of space and time.
Torrance has a very explosive chapter in “The Nature of the Resurrection Event.” He deals with eschatology proper and the reality of heaven. It is at times poetic and moving. He has some very interesting discussions on the nature of time. On one hand, the resurrection takes place within the coordinates of space and time. On the other hand, it begins to redeem time. Our current time is “refracted.” It has “broken loose from God,” yet neither does it descend into pure chaos and nothingness (97). Instead of liberal Protestantism’s “two histories” (geschicte and historie), Torrance calls us back to Paul’s “Two Ages.”
His meditation on the Ascension is also quite good. Torrance brings to bear the full power of his doctrine of vicarious humanity. Christ “presents us before the Father as those who are incorporated into him…He makes an offering to God through his eternal Spirit” (115). “Christ prayed with us in the flesh and puts the ‘Our Father’” in our mouths. He eternally is before the face of the Father. We have to think in terms of representation as well as substitution (116). Christ has “so identified himself with us” that he makes “his prayer and worship ours.”
Ascension, Space, and Time
The Lutherans accused the Reformed of an “extra Calvinisticum” because they operated with a receptacle view of space (124). The problem that all want to avoid is saying that the Eternal Logos became man in such a way that part of the Logos was excluded. If you have a receptacle/container notion of space, this seems to be an inevitable conclusion.
Against this, Torrance posits “a relational view of space and time differentially or variationally related to God and man” (126). Torrance alludes to his earlier work, but he never really unpacks this claim. He gives us some hints, though. In the incarnation God and man met in man’s space. In the ascension God and humanity (of Jesus) meet in God’s space. He suggests, following modern understandings of space-time, that space and time are always space and time for something. They cannot be abstracted.
Perhaps we can look at it this way. Torrance writes, “In the nature of the case, statements regarding [the] ascension are closed at man’s end (because bounded within the space-time limits of man’s existence on earth) but are infinitely open at God’s end” (131). Perhaps this is similar to his claim that God (and maybe his decree) aren’t contained within Aristotelian notions of logico-causality.
At the end of the book Torrance goes off on a wonderful tangent and trashes dualist thought. It doesn’t really have anything to do with his thesis. It’s just fun to read. The older Newtonian/Aristotelian views saw atoms and particles being connected by means of causes. Anything that doesn’t conform to this system isn’t “real.” Torrance says that the rise of James Maxwell Clerk and electromagnetism put an end to this (185). Electromagnetism cannot be reduced to Newtonian/Aristotelianism. For example, the relationship between fields of force are just as real as the atoms.
Levels of knowledge: According to Polanyi, the sciences can be arranged in a hierarchical structure of levels. “They open upwards into wider and more comprehensive systems of knowledge but are not reducible downwards” (Torrance 188). Sometimes we have to add an “additional factor” into the field of knowledge, but this factor can only be found at a higher level. These are boundary conditions, per Einstein, “where each one is coordinated with a higher system, in terms of which it becomes explicable and intelligible” (189).
In light of all this, Torrance doesn’t completely reject the old notion of “chain of being.” To be sure, in its older forms it is crude and outdated (and probably pantheistic). Instead of being, it might be better to see a structured hierarchy of knowledge.
Conclusion
One should read his earlier work on the Incarnation before reading this volume. The material in here is grand, but Torrance at times doesn’t give enough argumentation or merely alludes to other sources.
Crucial topic: is the resurrection a biological fact or a special fact? This is the question that gutted liberal Protestantism. However, the “conservative” answers sometimes missed a key truth. The answer is both, but both as in a “staggered hierarchy.” Yes, Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, yet so was Lazarus, which means the resurrection of Christ cannot simply be reduced to a biological “yes.” As Torrance points out in a footnote, quoting John Wilkinson, biological answers cannot yield theological answers, yet neither can they be placed against them (Torrance 60 n16). This is analogous to the relationship between classical mechanics and post-Einsteinianism. You can’t get to the latter by means of the former, yet you need both.
We cannot interpret the resurrecting processes within the old frame of death and entropy. It requires an irruption into a newer order. Liberal Protestants, being Deists and Gnostics, simply “spiritualized” this away. In accordance with Torrance’s kataphysical theology, the resurrection “impresses” itself on our minds and forces our minds to interpret it accordingly to its own reality.
One of the ways the resurrection safeguards man against the false teachings of Eastern religion, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism is that it anchors the reality of man. Resurrection, among other things, heals creation. It keeps man from sliding into an ephemeral fog.
Moreover, the resurrection places the theologian into the concrete realities of space and time.
Torrance has a very explosive chapter in “The Nature of the Resurrection Event.” He deals with eschatology proper and the reality of heaven. It is at times poetic and moving. He has some very interesting discussions on the nature of time. On one hand, the resurrection takes place within the coordinates of space and time. On the other hand, it begins to redeem time. Our current time is “refracted.” It has “broken loose from God,” yet neither does it descend into pure chaos and nothingness (97). Instead of liberal Protestantism’s “two histories” (geschicte and historie), Torrance calls us back to Paul’s “Two Ages.”
His meditation on the Ascension is also quite good. Torrance brings to bear the full power of his doctrine of vicarious humanity. Christ “presents us before the Father as those who are incorporated into him…He makes an offering to God through his eternal Spirit” (115). “Christ prayed with us in the flesh and puts the ‘Our Father’” in our mouths. He eternally is before the face of the Father. We have to think in terms of representation as well as substitution (116). Christ has “so identified himself with us” that he makes “his prayer and worship ours.”
Ascension, Space, and Time
The Lutherans accused the Reformed of an “extra Calvinisticum” because they operated with a receptacle view of space (124). The problem that all want to avoid is saying that the Eternal Logos became man in such a way that part of the Logos was excluded. If you have a receptacle/container notion of space, this seems to be an inevitable conclusion.
Against this, Torrance posits “a relational view of space and time differentially or variationally related to God and man” (126). Torrance alludes to his earlier work, but he never really unpacks this claim. He gives us some hints, though. In the incarnation God and man met in man’s space. In the ascension God and humanity (of Jesus) meet in God’s space. He suggests, following modern understandings of space-time, that space and time are always space and time for something. They cannot be abstracted.
Perhaps we can look at it this way. Torrance writes, “In the nature of the case, statements regarding [the] ascension are closed at man’s end (because bounded within the space-time limits of man’s existence on earth) but are infinitely open at God’s end” (131). Perhaps this is similar to his claim that God (and maybe his decree) aren’t contained within Aristotelian notions of logico-causality.
At the end of the book Torrance goes off on a wonderful tangent and trashes dualist thought. It doesn’t really have anything to do with his thesis. It’s just fun to read. The older Newtonian/Aristotelian views saw atoms and particles being connected by means of causes. Anything that doesn’t conform to this system isn’t “real.” Torrance says that the rise of James Maxwell Clerk and electromagnetism put an end to this (185). Electromagnetism cannot be reduced to Newtonian/Aristotelianism. For example, the relationship between fields of force are just as real as the atoms.
Levels of knowledge: According to Polanyi, the sciences can be arranged in a hierarchical structure of levels. “They open upwards into wider and more comprehensive systems of knowledge but are not reducible downwards” (Torrance 188). Sometimes we have to add an “additional factor” into the field of knowledge, but this factor can only be found at a higher level. These are boundary conditions, per Einstein, “where each one is coordinated with a higher system, in terms of which it becomes explicable and intelligible” (189).
In light of all this, Torrance doesn’t completely reject the old notion of “chain of being.” To be sure, in its older forms it is crude and outdated (and probably pantheistic). Instead of being, it might be better to see a structured hierarchy of knowledge.
Conclusion
One should read his earlier work on the Incarnation before reading this volume. The material in here is grand, but Torrance at times doesn’t give enough argumentation or merely alludes to other sources.
December 9, 2020
Torrance, Thomas F. Space, Time, and Resurrection. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, reprint 1998.
When we study the New Testament, “we try to understand that reality in its own light” and letting our mind “fall under the power of its intrinsic significance” (Torrance 5). This means the texts point beyond themselves (cf. Athanasius, CA 2.3).
Crucial topic: is the resurrection a biological fact or a special fact? This is the question that gutted liberal Protestantism. However, the “conservative” answers sometimes missed a key truth. The answer is both, but both as in a “staggered hierarchy.” Yes, Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, yet so was Lazarus, which means the resurrection of Christ cannot simply be reduced to a biological “yes.” As Torrance points out in a footnote, quoting John Wilkinson, biological answers cannot yield theological answers, yet neither can they be placed against them (Torrance 60 n16). This is analogous to the relationship between classical mechanics and post-Einsteinianism. You can’t get to the latter by means of the former, yet you need both.
We cannot interpret the resurrecting processes within the old frame of death and entropy. It requires an irruption into a newer order. Liberal Protestants, being Deists and Gnostics, simply “spiritualized” this away. In accordance with Torrance’s kataphysical theology, the resurrection “impresses'' itself on our minds and forces our minds to interpret it accordingly to its own reality.
One of the ways the resurrection safeguards man against the false teachings of Eastern religion, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism is that it anchors the reality of man. Resurrection, among other things, heals creation. It keeps man from sliding into an ephemeral fog.
Moreover, the resurrection places the theologian into the concrete realities of space and time.
Torrance has a very explosive chapter in “The Nature of the Resurrection Event.” He deals with eschatology proper and the reality of heaven. It is at times poetic and moving. He has some very interesting discussions on the nature of time. On one hand, the resurrection takes place within the coordinates of space and time. On the other hand, it begins to redeem time. Our current time is “refracted.” It has “broken loose from God,” yet neither does it descend into pure chaos and nothingness (97). Instead of liberal Protestantism’s “two histories” (geschicte and historie), Torrance calls us back to Paul’s “Two Ages.”
His meditation on the Ascension is also quite good. Torrance brings to bear the full power of his doctrine of vicarious humanity. Christ “presents us before the Father as those who are incorporated into him...He makes an offering to God through his eternal Spirit” (115). “Christ prayed with us in the flesh and puts the ‘Our Father’” in our mouths. He eternally is before the face of the Father. We have to think in terms of representation as well as substitution (116). Christ has “so identified himself with us” that he makes “his prayer and worship ours.”
Ascension, Space, and Time
The Lutherans accused the Reformed of an “extra Calvinisticum” because they operated with a receptacle view of space (124). The problem that all want to avoid is saying that the Eternal Logos became man in such a way that part of the Logos was excluded. If you have a receptacle/container notion of space, this seems to be an inevitable conclusion.
Against this, Torrance posits “a relational view of space and time differentially or variationally related to God and man” (126). Torrance alludes to his earlier work, but he never really unpacks this claim. He gives us some hints, though. In the incarnation God and man met in man’s space. In the ascension God and humanity (of Jesus) meet in God’s space. He suggests, following modern understandings of space-time, that space and time are always space and time for something. They cannot be abstracted.
Perhaps we can look at it this way. Torrance writes, “In the nature of the case, statements regarding [the] ascension are closed at man’s end (because bounded within the space-time limits of man’s existence on earth) but are infinitely open at God’s end” (131). Perhaps this is similar to his claim that God (and maybe his decree) aren’t contained within Aristotelian notions of logico-causality.
At the end of the book Torrance goes off on a wonderful tangent and trashes dualist thought. It doesn’t really have anything to do with his thesis. It’s just fun to read. The older Newtonian/Aristotelian views saw atoms and particles being connected by means of causes. Anything that doesn’t conform to this system isn’t “real.” Torrance says that the rise of James Maxwell Clerk and electromagnetism put an end to this (185). Electromagnetism cannot be reduced to Newtonian/Aristotelianism. For example, the relationship between fields of force are just as real as the atoms.
Levels of knowledge: According to Polanyi, the sciences can be arranged in a hierarchical structure of levels. “They open upwards into wider and more comprehensive systems of knowledge but are not reducible downwards” (Torrance 188). Sometimes we have to add an “additional factor” into the field of knowledge, but this factor can only be found at a higher level. These are boundary conditions, per Einstein, “where each one is coordinated with a higher system, in terms of which it becomes explicable and intelligible” (189).
In light of all this, Torrance doesn’t completely reject the old notion of “chain of being.” To be sure, in its older forms it is crude and outdated (and probably pantheistic). Instead of being, it might be better to see a structured hierarchy of knowledge.
Conclusion
One should read his earlier work on the Incarnation before reading this volume. The material in here is grand, but Torrance at times doesn’t give enough argumentation or merely alludes to other sources.
When we study the New Testament, “we try to understand that reality in its own light” and letting our mind “fall under the power of its intrinsic significance” (Torrance 5). This means the texts point beyond themselves (cf. Athanasius, CA 2.3).
Crucial topic: is the resurrection a biological fact or a special fact? This is the question that gutted liberal Protestantism. However, the “conservative” answers sometimes missed a key truth. The answer is both, but both as in a “staggered hierarchy.” Yes, Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, yet so was Lazarus, which means the resurrection of Christ cannot simply be reduced to a biological “yes.” As Torrance points out in a footnote, quoting John Wilkinson, biological answers cannot yield theological answers, yet neither can they be placed against them (Torrance 60 n16). This is analogous to the relationship between classical mechanics and post-Einsteinianism. You can’t get to the latter by means of the former, yet you need both.
We cannot interpret the resurrecting processes within the old frame of death and entropy. It requires an irruption into a newer order. Liberal Protestants, being Deists and Gnostics, simply “spiritualized” this away. In accordance with Torrance’s kataphysical theology, the resurrection “impresses'' itself on our minds and forces our minds to interpret it accordingly to its own reality.
One of the ways the resurrection safeguards man against the false teachings of Eastern religion, Gnosticism, and Neoplatonism is that it anchors the reality of man. Resurrection, among other things, heals creation. It keeps man from sliding into an ephemeral fog.
Moreover, the resurrection places the theologian into the concrete realities of space and time.
Torrance has a very explosive chapter in “The Nature of the Resurrection Event.” He deals with eschatology proper and the reality of heaven. It is at times poetic and moving. He has some very interesting discussions on the nature of time. On one hand, the resurrection takes place within the coordinates of space and time. On the other hand, it begins to redeem time. Our current time is “refracted.” It has “broken loose from God,” yet neither does it descend into pure chaos and nothingness (97). Instead of liberal Protestantism’s “two histories” (geschicte and historie), Torrance calls us back to Paul’s “Two Ages.”
His meditation on the Ascension is also quite good. Torrance brings to bear the full power of his doctrine of vicarious humanity. Christ “presents us before the Father as those who are incorporated into him...He makes an offering to God through his eternal Spirit” (115). “Christ prayed with us in the flesh and puts the ‘Our Father’” in our mouths. He eternally is before the face of the Father. We have to think in terms of representation as well as substitution (116). Christ has “so identified himself with us” that he makes “his prayer and worship ours.”
Ascension, Space, and Time
The Lutherans accused the Reformed of an “extra Calvinisticum” because they operated with a receptacle view of space (124). The problem that all want to avoid is saying that the Eternal Logos became man in such a way that part of the Logos was excluded. If you have a receptacle/container notion of space, this seems to be an inevitable conclusion.
Against this, Torrance posits “a relational view of space and time differentially or variationally related to God and man” (126). Torrance alludes to his earlier work, but he never really unpacks this claim. He gives us some hints, though. In the incarnation God and man met in man’s space. In the ascension God and humanity (of Jesus) meet in God’s space. He suggests, following modern understandings of space-time, that space and time are always space and time for something. They cannot be abstracted.
Perhaps we can look at it this way. Torrance writes, “In the nature of the case, statements regarding [the] ascension are closed at man’s end (because bounded within the space-time limits of man’s existence on earth) but are infinitely open at God’s end” (131). Perhaps this is similar to his claim that God (and maybe his decree) aren’t contained within Aristotelian notions of logico-causality.
At the end of the book Torrance goes off on a wonderful tangent and trashes dualist thought. It doesn’t really have anything to do with his thesis. It’s just fun to read. The older Newtonian/Aristotelian views saw atoms and particles being connected by means of causes. Anything that doesn’t conform to this system isn’t “real.” Torrance says that the rise of James Maxwell Clerk and electromagnetism put an end to this (185). Electromagnetism cannot be reduced to Newtonian/Aristotelianism. For example, the relationship between fields of force are just as real as the atoms.
Levels of knowledge: According to Polanyi, the sciences can be arranged in a hierarchical structure of levels. “They open upwards into wider and more comprehensive systems of knowledge but are not reducible downwards” (Torrance 188). Sometimes we have to add an “additional factor” into the field of knowledge, but this factor can only be found at a higher level. These are boundary conditions, per Einstein, “where each one is coordinated with a higher system, in terms of which it becomes explicable and intelligible” (189).
In light of all this, Torrance doesn’t completely reject the old notion of “chain of being.” To be sure, in its older forms it is crude and outdated (and probably pantheistic). Instead of being, it might be better to see a structured hierarchy of knowledge.
Conclusion
One should read his earlier work on the Incarnation before reading this volume. The material in here is grand, but Torrance at times doesn’t give enough argumentation or merely alludes to other sources.
April 21, 2014
I'm reading this book for a second time with a friend, and it is one of the best and richest books of theology I have read in some time. Truly a doxological experience!
Because the church is already participant in that new creation, i. e. in the millennium time of the resurrection, the Kingdom of the risen and ascended and advent Christ already knocks at the door of the church. That happens above all at the Holy Supper, where the risen Lord is present, in the Eucharistic Parousia, and where we taste already the powers of the age to come, and are given an antepast of the great banquet of the Kingdom that is to come. As often as we communicate in the Sacrament, we participate in the new time of that Kingdom. That is why the New Testament thinks of the sacraments as falling within the overlap between the two ages, this present age that passes away and the age that is to come... as often as the church partakes of Holy Communion in the real presence or parousia of Christ it becomes ever anew the Body of the risen Lord. (101-2)
Because the church is already participant in that new creation, i. e. in the millennium time of the resurrection, the Kingdom of the risen and ascended and advent Christ already knocks at the door of the church. That happens above all at the Holy Supper, where the risen Lord is present, in the Eucharistic Parousia, and where we taste already the powers of the age to come, and are given an antepast of the great banquet of the Kingdom that is to come. As often as we communicate in the Sacrament, we participate in the new time of that Kingdom. That is why the New Testament thinks of the sacraments as falling within the overlap between the two ages, this present age that passes away and the age that is to come... as often as the church partakes of Holy Communion in the real presence or parousia of Christ it becomes ever anew the Body of the risen Lord. (101-2)
November 14, 2024
DNF because of the introduction to the introduction 😒
July 7, 2025
“As we have seen, by withdrawing himself from visible and physical contact with us as our contemporary throughout history, Jesus Christ sends us back by his ascension to the Gospels and to their witness to the historical Jesus Christ. That is the appointed place in which nations and ages may meet with God. But with his ascension Jesus Christ also sent upon the Church and indeed upon 'all flesh' his Holy Spirit so that through the Spirit he might be present, really present, although in a different way. In order to think out the relation of the Church in history to Christ we must put both these together - mediate horizontal relation through history to the historical Jesus Christ and immediate vertical relation through the Spirit to the risen and ascended Jesus Christ. It is the former that supplies the material content, while it is the latter that supplies the immediacy of actual encounter.”
This quote is just a taste of the profound thinking and writing found throughout “Space, Time and Resurrection.” However, I think the book’s title should have been expanded to be called “Space, Time, Resurrection, and Ascension,” because Torrance’s teaching on the ascension is just as profound as his teaching on the resurrection here, and his chapters on the ascension are easily the highlight of the book for me.
This book is a sequel to Torrance’s “Space, Time and Incarnation.” Yet, these two books could not be more stylistically different. I must also add that “Space, Time and Incarnation” is far, far more dense, even if it is the shorter book! Torrance admits in his preface that this volume is more about time, whereas ST&I was more about space. Like no other theologian, Torrance makes you think about and see the value in scientific inquiry—specifically, developments in our understanding of space and time, for theological reflection. Thus, these two volumes on space and time in our understanding of the life and work of Christ have proven invaluable in my dissertation research. This book is so many things wrapped into one: Torrance’s exposition of a scientific theological method, a critique of Kant’s epistemology and Bultmann’s biblical hermeneutics, the impact of Einstein’s work and other scientific developments on our Christian theology, the importance of patristic voices for understanding the history and resurrection of Jesus in a continuous, non-dualistic manner. Indeed, Torrance heavily emphasizes the need to unify empirical and theoretical insights into our scientific and theological inquiry. We even get a great look at Torrance’s sacramental theological vision throughout this book. Very importantly, Torrance’s exegetical and hermeneutical methods are also clearly exhibited throughout the book as he engages many biblical texts, as well as engages much historical critical scholarship on the resurrection of Christ. There is also a 50 page introductory essay at the beginning of this book from Paul Molnar that is well worth the read for getting oriented with this book’s dense content.
Every time I read a book by Torrance, I come to understand more and more why he is considered the most significant English-speaking theologian of the 20th century.
On the resurrection in theological and scientific inquiry:
“What are we to make of such a conception of the resurrection in the intelligibilities of the space-time structures which theological science shares with the other sciences, natural or human? It will not do to hold our theological conceptions and our natural scientific conceptions apart in entirely disparate realms. Certainly they are divergent, for natural science is concerned only with the universe in its natural, contingent processes, whereas theological science is concerned with the acts of God which in creation brought those processes into being out of nothing and established them in their utter contingency, and which in incarnation accepted and established the reality of contingent processes and their intelligibility. Neither the doctrine of creation nor the doctrine of the incarnation witt allow theology to detach itself from, far less despise, natural or human science in which man is set by God to the task of exploring, and bringing to word, the order and harmony of the universe and all that takes place within it, for the universe is the sphere in which the believer glorifies and praises God the Creator, as well as the medium in and through which God makes himself known to man.”
On the nature of the church:
“This means that the Church is constantly summoned to look beyond its historical forms to the fullness and perfection that will be disclosed at the parousia and must never identify the structures it acquires and must acquire in the nomistic forms of this-worldly historical existence with the essential forms of its new being in Christ himself.”
This quote is just a taste of the profound thinking and writing found throughout “Space, Time and Resurrection.” However, I think the book’s title should have been expanded to be called “Space, Time, Resurrection, and Ascension,” because Torrance’s teaching on the ascension is just as profound as his teaching on the resurrection here, and his chapters on the ascension are easily the highlight of the book for me.
This book is a sequel to Torrance’s “Space, Time and Incarnation.” Yet, these two books could not be more stylistically different. I must also add that “Space, Time and Incarnation” is far, far more dense, even if it is the shorter book! Torrance admits in his preface that this volume is more about time, whereas ST&I was more about space. Like no other theologian, Torrance makes you think about and see the value in scientific inquiry—specifically, developments in our understanding of space and time, for theological reflection. Thus, these two volumes on space and time in our understanding of the life and work of Christ have proven invaluable in my dissertation research. This book is so many things wrapped into one: Torrance’s exposition of a scientific theological method, a critique of Kant’s epistemology and Bultmann’s biblical hermeneutics, the impact of Einstein’s work and other scientific developments on our Christian theology, the importance of patristic voices for understanding the history and resurrection of Jesus in a continuous, non-dualistic manner. Indeed, Torrance heavily emphasizes the need to unify empirical and theoretical insights into our scientific and theological inquiry. We even get a great look at Torrance’s sacramental theological vision throughout this book. Very importantly, Torrance’s exegetical and hermeneutical methods are also clearly exhibited throughout the book as he engages many biblical texts, as well as engages much historical critical scholarship on the resurrection of Christ. There is also a 50 page introductory essay at the beginning of this book from Paul Molnar that is well worth the read for getting oriented with this book’s dense content.
Every time I read a book by Torrance, I come to understand more and more why he is considered the most significant English-speaking theologian of the 20th century.
On the resurrection in theological and scientific inquiry:
“What are we to make of such a conception of the resurrection in the intelligibilities of the space-time structures which theological science shares with the other sciences, natural or human? It will not do to hold our theological conceptions and our natural scientific conceptions apart in entirely disparate realms. Certainly they are divergent, for natural science is concerned only with the universe in its natural, contingent processes, whereas theological science is concerned with the acts of God which in creation brought those processes into being out of nothing and established them in their utter contingency, and which in incarnation accepted and established the reality of contingent processes and their intelligibility. Neither the doctrine of creation nor the doctrine of the incarnation witt allow theology to detach itself from, far less despise, natural or human science in which man is set by God to the task of exploring, and bringing to word, the order and harmony of the universe and all that takes place within it, for the universe is the sphere in which the believer glorifies and praises God the Creator, as well as the medium in and through which God makes himself known to man.”
On the nature of the church:
“This means that the Church is constantly summoned to look beyond its historical forms to the fullness and perfection that will be disclosed at the parousia and must never identify the structures it acquires and must acquire in the nomistic forms of this-worldly historical existence with the essential forms of its new being in Christ himself.”
January 11, 2023
This is a dense book, although mostly understandable. I got a lot more out of this one than its predecessor, "Space, Time and Incarnation." Dr. Torrance continues to stress that Jesus' actions and being are inextricably one. The incarnation and resurrection are ongoing acts of creation. They are also consistent with the creator entering the creation. He stresses that we must have an integrated view of creation and reject dualistic approaches. I will need to read this again to get the full impact, but it was an excellent book.
March 19, 2025
Mind stretching; so much good; we part ways when he expresses his view of justification, which is aligned with Roman Catholic teaching (see pages 63-64) thinking we are not forgiven until we are made perfect. I recommend the book “How to Read T F Torrence before diving into this one.
June 12, 2017
Excellent study on the resurrection, ascension, and parousia.
May 22, 2020
This book was given to me by my professor Dr. Paul Molnar, who wrote the forward to the 2019 Cornerstone edition. In this book, originally published in 1976, Reformed theologian Thomas Torrance engages with developments in his own Protestant tradition, particularly the liberal strain that emerged in Germany with the historical-critical method. The biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann emerges as a frequent conversation partner because of his denial of the Resurrection's historicity, which allows Torrance to contrast Bultmann's views with his own.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, Torrance's overriding theme is to insist that faithful theologians must move beyond dualistic frameworks of interpreting the Resurrection because they inevitably end up rejecting the Resurrection as a new, decisive, and creative event in space and time. Instead, the Resurrection should be understood upon its own terms and explained within the language of God's covenanted relationship with Israel. This method, he argues, is properly understood as 'scientific' theology.
Many of his sources are derived from the Greek Patristics and the Protestant tradition, especially Karl Barth (his mentor). Two notable Catholic theologians cited to were Josef Ratzinger and Karl Rahner. This book was dense with information and insight that will probably require a second or third reread. It is primarily written for academic theologians, but can be worthwhile for anyone interested in exploring 20th century theological thought.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, Torrance's overriding theme is to insist that faithful theologians must move beyond dualistic frameworks of interpreting the Resurrection because they inevitably end up rejecting the Resurrection as a new, decisive, and creative event in space and time. Instead, the Resurrection should be understood upon its own terms and explained within the language of God's covenanted relationship with Israel. This method, he argues, is properly understood as 'scientific' theology.
Many of his sources are derived from the Greek Patristics and the Protestant tradition, especially Karl Barth (his mentor). Two notable Catholic theologians cited to were Josef Ratzinger and Karl Rahner. This book was dense with information and insight that will probably require a second or third reread. It is primarily written for academic theologians, but can be worthwhile for anyone interested in exploring 20th century theological thought.
August 12, 2011
As the converse of Space, Time, and Incarnation, STR looks primarily a the issues raised by the resurrection as they especially relate to time. Both STI and STR are written in such a manner that they can be read without each other. However when one reads them together, the reader is left with the indelible impression of just how linked the resurrection and the incarnation are in Torrance's thought. While our knowledge of God (which is tied to the atonement) is depenedent and contingent upon the resurrection of our crucified Lord, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is devoid of any saving significance when it is ripped from context of the incarnate Person of the Son of God come in sinful flesh.
November 1, 2012
I guess I read this looking for a Christian theology of space and time, but unfortunately, this book is a bit thin on the philosophy of space and time, and does not deliver what I hoped.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews